The Times, Are They a-Changing?

I've heard quite a number of women now remark on Brett Kavanaugh's emotional tantrum during Thursday's Senate hearing.  They actually recognized his tears for what they were:  rage at having been called to question for his past.  Up until now, Kavanaugh has had the bejeweled life of a white boy who went to the best prep school and college, who was groomed for success.  He was so confident -- cocky --about his bright and shining future, that he had made jokes about his rambunctious past behavior in front of a group of a group of law students at Catholic University for gods' sake:

"...fortunately, we had a good saying that we've held firm to, to this day,... which is, 'What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep....'  That's been a good thing for all of us, I think."

Until today, that is.  Today the thought of this man having the power of a Supreme Court Justice was just too much for a few women to bear.  Until now, men like Brett Kavanaugh and his drinking buddy Mark Judge, and like his admirer Donald Trump, were able to treat women with condescension and insult, and assume that all the bad behavior of their past would be of no consequence to their fortunes.

Kavanaugh's statement was pretty unbelievable.  He states proudly that he showed it to no one except one of his clerks.  Maybe that was his first mistake.  His tone was defensive from the beginning, his face contorted into rage.  His attacks were many, and bizarre, naming the Democrats in general and the ever-popular Clinton conspiracy machine in particular.  I imagine that holing up for days in the White House while you plan your attack (i.e. defense) will do that to a person.

Let me admit here that I was planning on listening again to Kavanaugh's opening statement, but just could not do it.  Over the past weeks I have heard enough lies from this smart and conceited brat.  I have been, since 2015, tainted by the ugly comments of our now sitting "president," and don't have much stomach for that kind of bullshit.  I did hear him avoid asking for an FBI investigation, and noted his clever legal tap-dance around the issue.  I'll bet he didn't even need to rehearse his responses, he is so good at the maneuvers that have gotten him to this point in his life.

He took his attitude from Clarence Thomas, who did the outrage thing at his hearing in 1991.  But Kavanaugh did not count on women who, in 2018, are fed up with the hatred and rage spewed by men of power when they are held to account.  We hear it in his voice, and his words.

It may be that Brett Kavanaugh's behavior at one time so scared him that he turned to God and went on the straight and narrow.  But it may also be that he has merely sculpted himself to look like the type of man who has always done the right thing.  Studies, sports and church indeed.  And it may be that the powerful white boy's club we have in this country accepted his whitewash and welcomed him into their arms, and he has never been challenged before.  Indeed, he said in so many words that he has never been challenged the way he is being challenged now.

We had a helluva nerve.

He certainly had good cause to assume his confirmation would be a slam dunk.  That is the way the Senate works these days, provided you are on the right side of this right wing.  You will be protected.  You don't have to answer a question if you don't want to, and those in power will help you dance around it if the questioner is too persistent.  Chuck Grassley has done a fine job of that, cutting Democrats off in mid-sentence when the air gets too thick.  Even so, the questions continued to come.  And the women, brave hearts that they are, continued to come forward.

Appalling:  Brett Kavanaugh was appalled at being called to account for a past that he has never even had to hide.  I tried to  imagine the fate of a person in Judge Kavanaugh's courtroom being asked a question he did not want to answer and responding, as he did with Senator Amy Klobuchar's question about whether he had ever blacked out, "I don't know, have you?"  Imagine Kavanaugh tolerating the belligerence he himself demonstrated.

I have heard many comparisons now of Kavanaugh's testimony to that of Dr. Ford, who was restrained and polite, and obviously attempting to answer as completely and honestly as possible.  What this hearing put me in mind of, though, was all those hours Hillary Clinton spent being harassed by this partisan Congress.

Hillary, too, was hoping to be chosen for an important position in the government.  What happened to her in Congress impacted her and the entire country.  Through all the accusations, through all the tortured and twisted investigations of everything she had ever said or done, Hillary held herself with dignity.  She was knowledgeable and professional.  She was tireless.  She never tried to avoid a question, or an investigation.  She never had a tantrum.

Because if she had, the men (and, sadly, too many women) would have pointed to her and said that this was proof that she was lying.  Meanwhile, hours and hours of testimony made their way into the media and took over the narrative of her campaign.  Still, she never attempted to refuse or avoid an investigation.  Not just because she was innocent, which she was, but because that is the temperament of a leader.

Brett Kavanaugh did not feel the need to reign in his behavior or his attitude.  He reeked of haughtiness and privilege, and self-importance.  He demonstrated exactly why he should not be on the court -- any court.  He stated melodramatically that his name has been "permanently destroyed by vicious and false... accusations."

One has to wonder why he would think, if he were innocent, why his life would be "permanently destroyed."  Remember, this is a judge.  Who presumably believes in the law, and the courts.  And who would have no compunction at all in demanding that any of us in his courtroom answer his questions.  And presumably assumes that the innocent would walk away happy to have had their day in court.

Apparently, Brett Kavanaugh does not believe that the truth will set him free.  Wonder why?

And I also have to wonder why someone of Kavanaugh's intelligence, who can argue the existence of angels on the head of a pin -- or the right to prevent a young woman from having a legal abortion -- would resort to such a slew of transparent and insulting lies.  Attributing "ralphing" to a weak stomach.  Lying brazenly about yearbook entries:  calling cruel references to being a "Renate alumnus" as honoring their friendship and calling the "Devil's Triangle" a drinking game.  I could just about picture him as a 17-year-old giving these answers, straight-faced, and then walking out of the room and bursting into laughter at having lied so convincingly.

We have also heard the comparisons between this hearing and that of Anita Hill.  We have had too many years of the smug and silent Clarence Thomas flaunting his right wing privilege over the poor and powerless of the country.  Granted, if justice had been served all those years ago, we may yet have had a conservative justice in his place who spoke out against women and minority rights, but we would not be haunted by the overtly misogynistic acts of the man and those who ignored compelling testimony to vote him to the Supreme Court.

So, where are we?

I won't even say I feel cautiously optimistic about the decision to have the FBI investigate Kavanaugh and the accusations.  The FBI may be bringing us the Russia investigation, but they also brought us Hillary's emails, and the door slamming on her campaign days before the election.  I wonder who Trump is reaching out to on the FBI, and how he is attempting to pull the strings of this investigation.  You know Trump.  You know he is.

I admit, I will be surprised if what happens is a thorough "limited investigation," and I will be further surprised if the Senate (no longer Chuck Grassley but the even more vile Mitch McConnell in charge) proceeds in an open and professional manner.

What should have happened weeks ago is that Kavanaugh should have withdrawn his nomination.  But he wants that post and that power so much that he can taste it, and it tastes better than any brew he has ever chugged.  He knows that in 1991 a similar hearing was rigged to halt further testimony, and that justice sits on the bench today.  His belief that a sitting president is immune to prosecution assures him that the deck is stacked in his favor by the most powerful man in the country, the one he would protect.

So we wait and see.  I cannot imagine a world in which we don't vote to take over the House and the Senate in November.  I don't want to believe that Americans can be that jaded and, frankly, stupid.  But I was here in 2016, and I know the impossible can happen.  And in the weeks to come we will find out whether women's voices matter any more than they did in 1991, or whether the rage of powerful men will drown them out.

What Comey Forgot

Not too long ago I wrote about an important book that went under the radar called, The Unmaking of the President 2016.  The book explains quite thoroughly how Comey's clumsy handling of the Hillary email fiasco caused Trump to win the election.  At the time, I got pretty snarky in describing James Comey.  But I do try to be fair, and now that I have heard him analyze the bizarre details of his past couple of years in the spotlight, and have read his book, A Higher Loyalty, I find that I have changed my opinion of the man.

I believe I have referred to James Comey as smug and compared him to Pence and Gorsuch, which would conveniently make them the unholy trinity of vanity, hypocrisy and self-righteousness.  But I don't believe Comey is like that at all.

He seems to be honestly struggling to do the right thing.  He can be self-deprecating, which means he is attempting to be objective and is aware of his own very human fallibility.  He has a sense of humor, which immediately separates him from the humorless Pence and Gorsuch, as well as Donald Trump.  By the way, I have for some time been aware that Trump never smiles or laughs, a feature of the narcissist-in-chief that had also come to Comey's attention.

Comey has a lot to say about bullying.  In his book he describes having been both a victim of bullying and an instance wherein he became a bully in his younger days.  This kind of self-analysis and insight makes his narrative of the election of Donald Trump both personal and relevant to the current political era.

As with all heroes, Comey's greatest strength became his Achilles heel.  The need to be honest and fair brought him to national attention during the Bush years, when he went head to head with Dick Cheney over the reauthorization of the NSA surveillance program "Stellar Wind."  It was a dramatic moment, when Jim Comey dashed to John Ashcroft's hospital room -- in intensive care -- to head off White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Bush chief of staff Andrew Card who were trying to force Ashcroft to sign the reauthorization.

Because of this, Comey had a great deal of respect and credibility when he began the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server as Secretary of State.

In his book, Comey goes into great detail explaining the situation as he saw it, and each step of his decision making.  It is obvious from this narrative that he has not only examined his actions but looked to others of his peers for their analysis.  He is aware that his actions may have influenced the election, and he has admitted that the thought of having a hand in electing the deranged and dangerous Donald Trump makes him "mildly nauseous."

I can appreciate, after the diarrhea of lies that have come from Donald Trump and his swamp creatures, that James Comey is being honest.  I share his nausea over the events that led to the election of Donald Trump.  I value the extent of his self-examination in order to get this account right.

But James Comey has missed an even greater factor in this tragic event.  He has neglected to include the effects of a corrupt Congress in the way this story has played out.

The story goes way back, but it was the republicans in Congress after the election of Barack Obama, and subsequently the Tea Party extremists that took over who represent the bully in the room.

It was minutes after Obama's inauguration that the republican leaders in Congress were meeting to strategize how to defeat the president.  Mitch McConnell famously and unashamedly stated,

John Boehner on the floor of the House led the rage with a cry of "Hell no you can't" as he talked about the proposed health care bill, a bill republicans refused to be a part of constructing, and then told the American people that the Democrats were excluding them from the process.

Republicans in Congress thwarted Obama's every effort to move the near-dead economy, ignored or distorted his successes and magnified out of context the defeats. Remember Solyndra?  Thanks to republican spin and the media echo chamber, all the successes that resulted from government investment in such small businesses were buried under headlines about this one failed attempt. 

That was the way Obama's eight years went under this republican Congress, as they doubled down on lies and false accusations with each electoral success.

While ignoring the hunting down of bin Laden and the winding down of one of our most tragic wars, republicans in Congress did not just refuse to work as partners with Obama in defeating our enemies, they actively opposed whatever he proposed.  Isis?  Syria?  The dynamic and entertaining McCain/Graham duo found fault with it all.  McConnell and Boehner refused to offer any constructive alternatives.  In fact, Congress did not offer any legislation that could be seen as a commitment one way or the other; all they offered was cynical criticism of anything Obama thought might work.  And because he believed that he should be working with Congress, he hesitated to take strong actions in Syria without agreement from Congress.  Although Obama's diplomacy turned out well at the time, he has faced contempt throughout for failing to act when Assad "crossed the red line."

And the whole Hillary project may have begun as an innocent misogynist reaction to the smart and powerful wife of a president, but by the time her intentions to run for president had barely been announced, the same game went into play.  Her every action was criticized, lies were told and then retold by the press, and the Hillary that can't be trusted became the narrative. 

The obstructionism worked, because the republican party united in their loud opposition.  They worked the media, and they played the American people.  They lied and then they lied again.

So, when Donald Trump brought his tantrums and lies to his campaign, the only difference between him and Congressional republicans was the degree and the flamboyance.  And because the media likes to follow shiny objects, like the orange hair, we got to witness every moment of the blowhard's traveling salvation show, with fake miracles and full-blown hate and hysteria.

Sadly, Trump gets full credit for Obama's failure to act more aggressively against Russian election interference.  And surely Trump was by then the bully that controlled the entire show.  He spewed anti-democratic hatred with far more flair than his republican allies.  But without eight years of the bombast and bullying of the republican party and Congressional leaders, Trump would have most likely been dismissed as a crackpot.  Without a Congress that refused to fight for anything other than their own survival, Obama would have fought hard against Russian interference.  But the bullies were harassing and attacking one of the candidates, and the opponent was making shrill accusations of cheating.  Bullies win when they cause the rest of us to lose confidence and to hesitate to do what is right.  The bullies won because Obama did not want to be seen as interfering in the election, as the bullies had already intimated.

And this is where Comey lost the thread of the narrative.  He thought he was cooperating with a responsible branch of government, but Congress was a fully partisan player in destroying Hillary Clinton.  He reported to Congress about emails as though the emails were the issue, and not the defamation of a candidate for president.  And then he went back again, because he had promised he would if anything changed, even though he had no reason to believe anything had changed.

Just as Obama went timidly into these last weeks of this election, Comey went obediently to Congress.  He ignored the advice of his boss and he rationalized ignoring precedent, and he interfered in the presidential election by jumping into an investigation because he was afraid of not opening it, and he reported it to Congress and the American people, because he was afraid he would be seen as dishonest if he didn't.

There are times when one has to take the risk of doing the wrong thing in order to do the right thing.  That last decision point, days before the election, was when James Comey decided it was more important that he be seen as trustworthy rather than that he had followed precedent and law.

James Comey has had to face the reality, through his subsequent dealings and ultimate firing by Donald Trump, that his attempt to be honorable led to a disaster for our democracy.  Out of fear of being seen as dishonorable, he allowed himself to be used by a corrupt Congress and a megalomaniac candidate.  Had he not come forward to announce the reopening of the investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails, the outcome of the election would surely have been different.  But then he would have had to face accusations of partisanship by the other side.  And that is where being honorable would really have come into play.

Which brings me to the point of the whole thing.  We have a Congress that is dirty.  Congressional republicans have proven to be wholly partisan and untrustworthy.  They have chosen to continue to hide facts in order to support a corrupt and unbalanced leader in order to maintain their hold over our democracy.  In Germany in 1933, it took elected members of the republic to give Hitler the power to create a dictatorship.  And today we have lapdogs like Devin Nunes and power mongers like Mitch McConnell paving the way for the illegal and undemocratic acts of the Trump administration.  Today this Congressional majority is not only thwarting efforts to protect Robert Mueller from being fired by Donald Trump, they have undermined the investigation into Russian interference.  And incredibly, we continue to hear from one or the other that they think Congress should reopen investigations on Hillary.

While Trump keeps us busy following his criminal and crazy rants, Congress is truly the arm in which the fate of our democracy rests.  I don't believe we can take another session of republican rule.  Not only have they gutted laws that protect 98 percent of us, they have stood by as Trump signs away our environment and our liberties.  They happily approve federal judges that represent the far right:  big business, big money and the curbing of individual freedoms.  They continue to hope baiting us with Planned Parenthood and the Second Amendment will keep them in power, and are blind to the threats to our democracy.  In so doing, they have become the greatest threat to our democracy.

This is why we must do everything we can to turn over both houses of Congress in November.  The only way we can survive the terrorism of Donald Trump is by electing a Congress that will fight for our democratic principles.

We cannot be passive during this midterm election season.  Be informed.  Volunteer.  Donate.  Spread the word.  Vote.

Our lives and our children's futures depend on it. 

The Ironic Cherry Reads... What's Up with James Comey?

The Unmaking of the President

2016

by

Lanny J. Davis

I am not a fan of James Comey.  He is smug and smarmy and carries himself with the self-satisfied aura of Mike Pence and Neil Gorsuch.  I look forward to reading what promises to be a self-serving memoir entitled A Higher Loyalty much as I looked forward to the 60 Minutes interview with Stormy Daniels; that is, with a great deal of skepticism.

I picked up the book, The Unmaking of the President 2016, when it came up in my library search for Comey's book.  With all the Trump/Russia/election books out there, this one seemed to have gone under the radar.  Since I have less time to waste these days, I did a quick google search for the author and the book, and decided it would be worth the effort.  And I needed a more objective narrative before I tackled Comey in his own words.

It is a shame that we are reading trash like Fire and Fury while this book goes unnoticed.  It is a clear and well-documented record of the FBI "investigation" of Clinton's emails, and describes precisely how -- and why -- this incredible interference into the 2016 presidential election came to be.

Going way back to the reporting on the initial fake Clinton scandal known as Whitewater, Davis describes the biased and inaccurate reporting of the New York Times, and then the similar biased coverage in its misleading reporting of the FBI email investigation.  In a nutshell:  When the fact of Hillary's use of a private email server became news, she said, "I want the public to see my email(s).  I asked State to release them.  They said they will review them for release as soon as possible."  This routine "security investigation" to determine if any documents to be released were confidential was reported by the Times as a "criminal investigation."

Throughout, insinuations became headlines, and corrections and clarifications were buried near the bottom of the page.  Right wing media like Fox and Breitbart began the rallying cry and mainstream media led by the Times was all too happy to follow suit.  And it was Clinton season in the political hunting world once again.

The sainted Comey (self-sainted, I would like to add) may have been best known for the moral stance he took by standing up to Bush administration pressure to reauthorize illegal spying.  But, as recounted in The Guardian, Comey is not a huge fan of civil liberties.  He has backed torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention.  Davis claims that Comey's heroic act had more to do with "technical issues" -- and maybe also the fact of the Bush administration trying to do an end run around Comey to get to a hospitalized John Ashcroft -- than with principled opposition to the program.

Democrats have been heralding Comey as a hero once again since his firing by Trump.  Of course, the idiot-in-chief tried to con the Democrats by saying Comey was fired because of the bad things he did to Hillary --  even though he admitted on national TV that he indeed fired Comey because of the "Russier thing."  While we aren't buying that load of Trump manure, we should also be wary of the man who said during his Senate testimony:  "It makes me mildly nauseous to think that we might have had some impact on the election.  But honestly, it wouldn't change the decision."

There have been things about Comey and the FBI leading up to the election that have made me mildly nauseous as well.  I have wondered about Comey's anti-Clinton bias, as he was supposed to have been honorable and non-partisan.  I wondered at his extremely poor judgment and apparently partisan exposure of the Clinton investigation while keeping the Trump investigation under wraps.  And I wondered why on earth he would make the announcement that he was reopening the investigation on October 28, going against long-standing DOJ policy not to make public announcements that close to an election that might effect the outcome.

Which leads us to Rudy Giuliani and the New York FBI.  Ignorant as I am about the goings on of the New York FBI, there was just something squirrelly about Giuliani's gleeful and somewhat mad TV appearances days and even weeks before Comey's October 28 surprise.  Because "surprise" was exactly what Giuliani was crowing about.  Davis explains this puzzle in a way that makes all the crazy pieces fit.

Take years of a rabid republican Congress trying to dig up scandal against the presumed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, add to that the festering Giuliani and his New York FBI cronies, and top it off with a year and a half of Trump's paranoid harangue that everybody is out to get him and the election is being rigged.  The end result is Comey being twisted and influenced because of his own need to be seen as above the fray, morally and politically superior to those around him.

Davis ends his argument with an impressive chapter detailing objective measures that point to the effect of the Comey letter on the outcome of the election.  Yes, it is possible, and he does not just point to a single poll but several measures that show strong consensus in the dramatic changes that occurred after October 28.

The last chapter of the book is a strange one, in that it led me to ask:  "Why is this here?"  It is labeled "Epilogue" and details the impeachment process and twenty-fifth amendment:  the history, the process and the relevance.  Again, it is well-drawn and important, but really has nothing to do with Comey.  At all.  I couldn't help but imagine that the author was so impassioned by the need to rid ourselves of the scourge of Donald Trump (as are we all) that he just had to include this appeal.  Whatever his reasoning, I'm glad his editors let this tangential bit in.

I am also glad that I found this book before diving into Comey's memoir.

One last thought:

A better title might have been, "The Unmaking of the Presidency."

The Ironic Cherry Reads... about the Nightmare at the DNC

Hacks:

The Inside Story of the Break-Ins

and Breakdowns that Put

Donald Trump in the White House

by Donna Brazile

I never trust the advance PR for a new political read.  Somebody takes a couple of fiery quotes and distorts the entire message of the book, invariably.  With the possible exception of Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury, which I have not yet read but imagine to be full of exactly the stuff the media ran away with.

So, despite never having been enamored with Donna Brazile, I picked up Hacks.  It is a solid reporting of the experience of running the Democratic National Committee during the Trump-created havoc of 2016.  She does begin by talking about the financial mess partially created by Obama and further entangled by Clinton's attempt to help (with benefits).  And she strains in trying to be fair in her narrative of Debbie Wasserman Schultz's chairing of the DNC.

She then goes on to talk about the young men who were running Hillary's campaign, and especially young guns like Robby Mook, who refused to work with Brazile to get funding for state campaigns.  My own knowledge of Mook was his heavy handed involvement in the Democratic primary for South Carolina's 5th Congressional District before the 2017 primary for the special election, so it was not hard to believe that he would consider his own opinion in higher regard than others with different views or greater experience.

With the financial mess and the appearance that Wasserman Schultz made decisions favoring Hillary over Bernie, and the ugly attacks that Trump made whenever he opened his mouth, the hacking of the DNC was the rot that Brazile had to fight throughout the remainder of the campaign.

The story of the Russian hacks and how she fought off the invasions is gripping.  She describes the innumerable and unimaginable ways the hacks affected the campaign:  the staff, the candidate, the American people.  Demoralizing and frightening, the hacks created a pervasive sense of fear in volunteers and paid staff; worse, Trump's verbal abuse opened the door to vicious attacks at home and in the office.  The murder of a young staffer in what appeared to be a botched robbery became fuel for the Fox News conspiracy machine.  This made it not just a tragedy but another outrage to endure during a nightmare campaign season.

Brazile provides a thorough accounting of the hacks as they were orchestrated throughout the campaign.  She notes that the email dumps were well-coordinated with Trump's invective, including his "Russia, if you're listening" remark.  Along with email hacks and strategic dumps, there was concern about wiretaps and bugs.  Threats by phone and online required increased security.

Brazile became the focus of hateful calls and threats after a questionable email purportedly from Brazile to the Hillary campaign was leaked.  The email provided a question that would be used at the upcoming town hall debate.  Brazile believes that the email was a fake, as she has no recollection of sending it and said she would never leak such information.  This faked email may have been cooked up after a false news story appeared accusing Brazile of giving Hillary questions before the first debate.  Though she searched each of her email accounts, Brazile never found the suspect email, but it profoundly affected her career; she was fired from CNN after a long career there as a political commentator.  She suffered enormously throughout the professional slander and following threats.

When I began the book, I thought that Donna Brazile's tendency to personalize the story of the DNC and the 2016 election would get in the way.  Rather, it was her emotional involvement throughout this excruciating and unprecedented assault that gives this narrative passion and meaning.  It was not the lies, the hacks, the bugs, the distortions that is the point:  it is the effect that these had on the lives of the people on the campaign.  And it is the effect that they had, in the end, on the voters.

Brazile's heartfelt message throughout is that we must stop this assault.  Our democracy cannot survive if we do not work together to prevent this from happening again.  She had no help from the RNC in attempting to stand up to the Russians, or to communicate that this was happening to the American people.  Today the republican Congress is doing all in their power to fight an investigation that seems to surely lead to Donald Trump and collusion with Russia to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.  Rather, today they continue to try to obfuscate and blame anyone who might uncover the truth.

With 2018 elections coming fast, we are made vulnerable, once again, by the failure of republican leaders to put country before themselves, and a president who has nothing to gain from an honest and thorough investigation.  If you want to gain an understanding of the intricate ways in which cyberwarfare can influence future elections, this is a good book to get you started.

I

Creepy Congress

Corrupt, sleazy liars.  We could all go on and on.  It has reached a point these days, between sexual harassment and blatantly stealing from the American people to add millions to their donors' wealth, that words fail me and I have had to resort to verbal emoticons:

Ugh.  Yuch.  Blech.  Euwww.

It is really inconceivable that Mitch McConnell has been able to get away with bending and breaking rules so flagrantly.  But it is happening.  Congress is now made up of salivating dogs that haven't even swallowed their tax cuts and are already sniffing for the next meals, Social Security and Medicare.

Gross.  Disgusting.  Sick.

And as if raping our country wasn't enough to turn our insides, we have lately been forced to confront what every-damn-body knows about men's scorn for women.  And Democrats, no surprise, are complicit.

So let me just vent a little about what we have all known as acceptable behavior until now, and just how STUPID it is.

Men continue to treat women nursing babies as though they are committing a dirty act, and don't allow it in public.  That asshole contaminating our White House actually made a point of being grossed out because Hillary needed a bathroom break during a debate.  But apparently it is a THING for men to lounge around their offices without their pants on.  After all, LBJ lowered that bar by insisting that staff talk to him while he was on the toilet, with the door opened.  Although, to my knowledge, it was just male staff to whom he was giving the benefit of his full perspective.

What the fuck are they thinking?

It's funny -- not haha funny but sad, pathetic funny -- that I heard no one during the debates about John Conyers and his need to allow his private parts to breathe, wonder why the hell he didn't lock his damn door.

African Americans have known all along that white folk behaved as though they were inconsequential, invisible.  And that that behavior was intended to put them in their place.  Women, we need to recognize that men have been doing that to us.

From the coining of the words mansplaining to manspreading, the younger generation of women has been letting us know that they have caught on.  Panels of old white men making laws about our genitals and reproductive systems is obscene.  More important, it reinforces the message that they know better than us, and reminds us in no uncertain terms that they are in charge.

So it really shouldn't have come as a surprise that Trent Franks had asked female staff about inseminating them, offering money for the service.  What IS surprising is that it was only when the women were concerned that he was talking about sex, not artificial insemination, that they decided to go to the House Ethics Committee.  Because, after all, asking a member of your staff to impregnate themselves for you without sex would have been okay.

What the #MeToo movement has done is shown in more ways than we could have ever comprehended, how not just overtly sexual but also ridiculously inappropriate behaviors have shamed and stifled women.

We have indeed only scratched the surface of the sexism that kept Hillary out of the White House.  I am glad that the accusations of sexual harassment by creepy Matt Lauer led to us all taking a second long look at his condescension and bullying of Hillary Clinton during a candidates' forum.  But what of Chuck Todd, who could not say a critical word about Donald Trump without stating that Trump and Hillary were the most disliked candidates in history; of course, much of the distrust of Hillary came not from any proof ("I don't know why; I just don't trust her") but from comments like those of Chuck Todd.

And, women, we have to stop making excuses.

I had a really hard time with Al Franken.  My excuse: the incident happened before he was senator, and his whole schtick had been pushing the edge.  In fact, Leeann Tweeden accepted Franken's apology as sincere and stated it had not been her wish to have him removed from office.  And, except for the stupid and gross behavior that he sees as comic and women see as, well, stupid and gross, he is an amazing progressive senator who has stood strong for women's rights.

That's where all this gets tough.  We have lost Franken in the Senate and may well end up with the homophobic pervert Roy Moore.  And let us not forget the sexual predator that is contaminating the White House.

So I suggest that:

1.  We keep talking.  There are no right and wrong answers.  Not yet.  There will always be fuzzy lines, but there can be a lot more clarity, as long as we keep insisting on being heard.  As long as we are not afraid to argue; the differences will lead to clarity in time.

2.  We learn to say NO.  The saddest thing about Leeann Tweeden's experience was that a professional woman was unable to immediately and unequivocally tell Franken to knock it off.  Women need to learn to do it.  And we need to make sure our daughters are able to do it.  Without fear of repercussion.

3.  We insist on real consequences.  Right this very minute, while Paul Ryan is having wet dreams at the thought of killing Social Security and Medicare, Mitch McConnell is chuckling over the fact that the Dems have lost two strong progressive voices in Congress and he is about to gain one demented sexual predator, who, like the other one he supported, will endorse any piece of shit bill the republicans push through.  And, for that matter, it is time to get rid of the Congressional slush fund that pays, through our tax dollars, for findings of misconduct.

Yes, that's right.  Congress has its own special deal with the US Treasury that fines levied due to findings of misconduct will be paid with tax dollars.  WHAT THE HELL IS THAT???

A few weeks ago, Saturday Night Live had an hilarious sketch featuring "Claire from HR."  Laugh your ass off, and then listen to it again, because, absurdly, this is reality.

There is so much misogyny in all workplaces, yet it seems fitting that we begin by shining the light on the swamp creatures in Congress.  After all, by being charged with making the laws that we live by, they have come to see themselves as above the law.  Their behavior has become more egregious, their stated intent to ignore our needs more blatant, as this sick Trump administration blunders forward.

It is fitting that on January 21, women led the way to resistance, and we will continue to fight for what is right.  Respect for women should be our top priority.

Because as Hillary Clinton said, "Women's rights are human rights."   

Women Hauling Off

At my tennis clinic, the instructor told a relatively new player to just haul off, hit the ball as hard as you can.  Then she explained that men and boys had no problem doing that; she never had to tell them to let go and hit it as hard as they can.  Women and girls were more tentative, so she would tell us not to worry about getting it right, but to just wallop it.  It worked.  The young woman hit some amazing shots after that advice.

I recently went to the Charleston launch party for Emerge America, a wonderful group created to encourage and assist women to step up and run for office.  I was told that whereas men will get involved confident that they can do a better job than others, extremely competent women all too often hold back because they don't feel competent enough to run for office.

I admire women who have great confidence.  I grew up in a blue collar family with an immigrant father.  As the oldest, even as a girl, my parents had high hopes for me.  They thought, as smart as I was, I should become a teacher.  They didn't tell me about it, but I heard that they were proud of me for going to college, but it was rough going.  And yet, I did make it through, and ended up getting all the way through to a Ph.D.  My father's reaction when I told him I was going back to school for a doctorate could best be described as confused derision.  "You already went to school.  Why do you have to go back?"

In a nutshell, my relationship with my father began with him telling me, as a child, how smart I was.  And then, when I began to have opinions that were different from his, I became someone who "thought I was so smart."  So, no confidence building there.

Hillary Rodham Clinton had a father who could not imagine her not being able to do anything a man could do, and do it better.  Same for Elizabeth Warren.  Women who grew up with fathers who saw them as equal to men, and able to compete and excel tend to do that.  Here in my later years, when I catch myself criticizing myself or worrying over some social anxiety or other nonsense, I mutter, "Thanks, Dad," and then get on with it.

But those insecurities that most women incorporate from childhood are reinforced in society:  lower pay, sexual stereotypes and harassment, lower expectations despite greater responsibility, and so many more subtle social forces.  The attack on reproductive rights is one of the more critical fronts intended to keep women from having the same control over their lives as have men.

The good news is, the backlash is here.

I am thrilled at the generation of younger women who are moving women forward today.  They have been, over the years, more visible in the arts, in the media, in finance and in politics.  But the Women's March on January 21 was the explosion that caused us to look around and see that we were the ones that would change the sad course that history had been taking.  We were the ones that weren't getting tangled up in questionable arguments and slippery slopes.  United, we stood for everyone.

So, as the 2018 midterms approach, thousands of women across the country are stepping up.  And groups like Emerge America and WREN -- Women's Rights and Empowerment Network -- are there to help.  Because we know what the country needs, but may not have the tools to get through the man-made maze of red tape to get there.

You won't be surprised to hear that women attempting to run for office experience a bias that excludes, ignores or minimizes their candidacy.  In a South Carolina special election primary a few short months ago, an older white businessman ran against a young black woman.  People from in and out of state eagerly signed up to help in his campaign, some fairly big names with the national party, bombarding Facebook and email in-boxes.  The State ran an article headlined:  "In SC Congress Race, Goldman Sachs Executive Faces Student."  The "student" was a woman who had spent six years in the military, working as a paralegal in an Army JAG legal affairs office.  Hard to imagine a headline written for a man that did not include "military veteran."

And yet, with little to no help from state or national party, she ended the primary with 22 percent of the vote.

I am also discerning a subtle and dangerous pattern as people enter 2018 races.  A woman enters a race.  Then, seeing no great risk, a man jumps in.  And then more well-known men jump in to support him.  And then the woman gets ignored or minimized.

Gods, I hope I am wrong.  But I am writing today to alert all you women and the men who are strong and confident enough to support us, because we will need to be aware of the biases and fight harder to be heard as we run for office.  When we see something like that ridiculous headline in The State, or a primary being held as though the male candidate's win was a given, we need to not just speak up, but yell.  We need to support the great and talented women that have stepped up with all we've got.

We need to "haul off." 

The Fear and Trashing of Hillary Rodham Clinton

The Ironic Cherry reads...

What Happened

by

Hillary Rodham Clinton

A few years ago, as I began to listen to the audiobook of Hillary's years as Secretary of State, Hard Choices, I became aware that I was listening for signs of duplicity.  I have been an admirer of Clinton's since It Takes a Village way back in 1996, and actually from the time she became First Lady.  But sad as this may be, the doubts creep back whenever I have lost touch with her.  As I read, I found not any trace of duplicity.  Rather, she spoke as she always does, from her heart, and with a great deal of knowledge.  She spoke with self-awareness and even a touch of self-deprecation.  Her words were measured and intelligent.  She is, was, and will continue to be, a masterful writer, and one with a lot to say.

So I was discouraged, but not entirely surprised, when the reaction I heard to her new book from way too many women was: the election is over, and Hillary should just go away.  That is the tragedy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

She has been trashed mercilessly, and quite stupidly, for decades.  Politicians and the media were tickled to put her in the headlights over Bill's sexual indiscretions.  Men were more than happy to attack her victimhood, and saddest of all, women joined in to critique her behavior during this most personal of difficult times.

And so it goes.  We have heard about her hair and her pantsuits ad nauseum.  Before she was First Lady, she had had to deal with Bill's inability to get re-elected in Arkansas with a wife who practiced law and went by her given name.  And then, when she reached the White House, there was the national incident over her comment that she chose not to stay home and have teas and bake cookies.  If you recall, that was such a focus of our attention that she ended up sharing her mother's chocolate chip cookie recipe with the world, to prove she actually could bake.

Then things got serious, as republicans decided that the Clintons were too popular.  The road to the Clintons' demise, began with Bill's womanizing; those headlines were such a hit, that the mudslingers at the republican party turned over every damn leaf to find dirt to aim at them.  They hit the mother lode with investigations over the business venture Whitewater.  Those of you who wheel and deal in business know that there are way too many grey lines in big deals.  And even though Bill and Hillary were never found guilty of misconduct, some were, and that, my friend, is all you need to fuel the fires of suspicion.

Headlines.  That is all most of us have time for.  And when there was no proof, allegations and innuendo were enough.  And since Bill and Hillary ended up with a fair amount of wealth, it is even easier to stoke the fires.

Add to that the internet, and we have gone from rumors that Bill had murdered his friend Vince Foster, which keeps popping up like rats in sludge, to the absurd near tragedy of last year's Pizzagate.  Fact is, when there are no facts to denigrate Hillary Clinton, a lie will always do.

And add to that the absolute cruelty of those who hate Hillary, armed with Facebook and Twitter.  And the sad, sad fact that the news media can NOT turn away from potential scandal, the uglier the better, but if ugly isn't available, stupid will do, as proven by video loops of her falling.

There we were, then, in 2016, with smart women shaking their heads and saying, "I just don't trust her."

Why don't you trust her?  Either we don't know enough about her or we know too much about her.  She shows too much emotion or not enough.

Fact is, we probably know more about Hillary than we do of any candidate who has ever run for president.  We know more personal stuff about her than we have any right to know.  We know more about her finances than any other president (I don't even need to mention the secretive crook that is skulking around the White House these days).  For all the millions of dollars that have been spent to try to dig up financial irregularities about Hillary and Bill, you might think there would be something to show for it.

The republicans may not be able to get the dollar signs out of their eyes in order to see how their financial fantasies erode our economy, but they do know how to spread contention and distrust.  Let us not give Trump all the credit; the republican party spread manure over the soil to make it fertile ground in which to grow all of Trump's hate.

We liberals like to talk with disdain about the uninformed American, but there are levels of being uninformed.  As I said earlier, most of us don't have time for more than headlines.  Some of us, who work too hard and struggle to raise families, don't even have time for that.  But if you are going to make an informed decision about a candidate, you just have to go underneath the headlines.  To the source.  And the source is out there.

From the time that reality show host rode down the escalator, the media was a captive audience.  Every ugly word was captured in prime time, every day.

But Hillary's campaign wasn't about invective.  It was about policies.  And she had plans, lots of them.  That is what Hillary does.  She looks at a problem and figures out how to make it better.  And she doesn't let anything slip by.

We don't know that because while we were watching the republican car wreck, Hillary was making speeches about the economy and women's rights, education and technology.  I watched a couple of her speeches, so few because I had to actually remember to take the time to find them on C-Span or the internet.  But let me tell you, they were wonderful.  Those of you who think she neglected the middle class, the white middle class, didn't focus enough on jobs, focused too much on "identity politics," you weren't there.  You were listening to her campaign through pundits, who were obediently repeating rumors about emails.

And we women, myself very much included, have the quality which makes our daughters strong and smart and determined:  we are incredibly hard on women, ourselves, our friends, our daughters.  We had criticisms for Hillary that were ridiculous in comparison to all the others who ran for president in 2016.  And we also had the cloud that had been polluting her space for thirty years.

As with all things Hillary, in talking about her book pre-publication, the media highlighted two of the most tantalizing tidbits:  1) James Comey's part in her defeat; and 2) Trump stalking her at the town hall debate.  Which led us to believe that the book would be an obsessive rant about her defeat.

I would not have blamed her if that was what it had been.  After having to take more crap than any other politician ever, she certainly would have been entitled.  But that is not at all what this memoir is about.

The content of What Happened is much like the title, which is much like Hillary herself.  In the book she explores the state of women in politics, her relationship with Putin as Secretary of State and the involvement of Russia in derailing an already dysfunctional political system, and yes, the email nonsense.  She does it in a down-to-earth and objective way, while also honestly acknowledging her feelings and perceptions throughout and since.  She also tells us about a day on the trail, because she gets asked about it a lot.  She tells us about her grandchildren and her friends, and how they have helped her heal and given her hope.

Except she has always had hope.  The thing that I love about Hillary, besides her intelligence and morality, is that she always has hope.  She is always going to get up and fight again, and it infuriates her enemies.  I believe her willingness to look at herself critically and admit mistakes also drives her enemies crazy, because you have got to be tough to admit to your faults and come away better.

Since publication, Hillary has given some great interviews, the latest with Fareed Zakaria on Sunday.

What Happened provides so much more important and fascinating detail about, yes, what happened.  Most important, as Hillary has said in the book and in interviews, we need to truly understand what went on so that it won't happen again.  In this book, she talks about it as though she were sitting in the room with us, sharing her ideas and experience.

After all these years, we owe it to ourselves to get to know Hillary Rodham Clinton, who I believe will go down as one of the greatest and most influential women in American history.

One Last Thing about Ossoff and Parnell

Tuesday is the day it seems we have been waiting for since forever.  We have been hammered with emails.  We have been prodded and pestered about donating just $3.  We have heard from nearly every party Democrat about how important these races are.

I just have one last thing to say before Tuesday.

On Wednesday, if Karen Handel has won in Georgia, or if Ralph Norman has won in South Carolina, will you be sad, or angry, or worried?  Will you wish there was that one more thing you could have done?  Would you wish you had called your friend in Georgia’s 6^th, or SC’s 5^th, and told them what you know about the difference between the candidates?  Would you wish you had offered your neighbor a ride to the polls?  Will you wish you had gotten out and voted, even if it meant getting up early before work, or getting home late, or putting off some important errands?

If our Democratic candidates lose on Tuesday, and Handel and Norman get to Congress and vote to repeal your health care and cut social security benefits, will you have regrets?

A lot of us are living with the fact that there was just that one more thing they could have done to elect Hillary Clinton, and wish we could go back in time and fix it.  Like the Brexit voter who thought it was just a protest vote, there are more than a few of us who voted against Hillary or who sat on the sidelines because Hillary was not our perfect candidate.  There are those of us who were tired of promises by Democrats that seemed to be lies, and who voted for the other candidate because they were sure he he wasn't lying because of the outrageous things he was saying.

On Wednesday, we may elect someone who is going to fight against tax cuts for the rich that take away our safety nets.  We might elect someone who will fight to make our schools, our jobs, our lives better.  Or we may decide that our vote doesn’t matter and stay home.

I hope you will each do that one last thing to elect Jon Ossoff and Archie Parnell.  If there was ever a time that our democratic vote meant something, it is now.

This is my one last thing.